A Non Homogeneous Universe, Sagan's mistake

dad · #21 29th October 2009, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by laconicstudent

Dad's officially a troll. He failed twice in a row to address the bolded and underlined refutation. Now Dad is also pretending that emission spectra lies as well and we don't know what's out there, despite the fact that emission spectra is based on experiments that you can preform in any physics lab.

You have a knack for missing the point. Firstly I answered your post, here was the reply...

You must remember that you have no idea what is actually out there. Therefore you have no idea if starlight split hydrogen atoms, or something else. All we can do is weakly try to see what is out there. Even then, that requires, usually, a lot of 'imagination' to put it politely.

"molecular hydrogen (symbol H2) The normal form of hydrogen gas found on Earth, with two hydrogen atoms bound together by two shared electrons. Hydrogen molecules cannot survive in most regions of space, because they are easily dissociated (split) by ultraviolet light from stars, but they do occur in cold, dense molecular clouds where they are shielded by dust particles. Molecular hydrogen is the main constituent of molecular clouds, but it is difficult to observe directly as it is a symmetrical molecule with no strong radio or millimetre-wave spectral lines."

molecular hydrogen - Definition of molecular hydrogen | Encyclopedia.com: Dictionary of Astronomy

So what "split" what, when, and how do we know, is the issue. Not, what splits what on earth now.

Science certainly is full of the dark stuff.

---It is not I that avoids the issues, in any way.

I never denied any spectra, that is a lie. The point is not that hydrogen may not be different than here, and observed, if that is what we did see. The point is that we cannot say how it got that way! We can merely see how the spectrum is. No one questions that we can see how things work in a lab?? Can you name something from a lab, that I said doesn't work??

Try to debate in good faith. It is not I that acts trollish here.

dad · #22 29th October 2009, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by BananaSlug

In my experience, given enough time and thread length, dad eventually cannot keep up with his claims and eventually refutes his own arguments. I call it BananaSlug's law of dadtropy.

I often use others to defeat their own arguments. The concept of a different universe state has never hardly been addressed, let alone anyone defeating it. Sounds like Bannaslug's load of made up gooey stuff.

dad · #23 29th October 2009, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Thistlethorn

It is the real thing, but it's still trolling. Dad never debates anything. He simply falls back to his "different state" nonsense, so his posts can't be called anything else than troll-posts.

When debating the spiritual, heaven or far past and future, the state of the universe is the central issue. Dealing it is not avoiding debate, it is engaging in the very heart of the matter.

Avoiding it is cowardly.

dad · #24 29th October 2009, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

The solution to trolls? Kittens!

Gracchus · #25 29th October 2009, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by dad

When debating the spiritual, heaven or far past and future, the state of the universe is the central issue. Dealing it is not avoiding debate, it is engaging in the very heart of the matter.

Avoiding it is cowardly.

When debating whether leprechauns created the universe, whether they wear green or orange is the central issue. Dealing with it is not avoiding debate, it is engaging in the very heart of the matter.

laconicstudent · #26 29th October 2009, 10:16 PM

Ok, just for amusement, I'll refute this, even though you never bother to try refuting my own points

Originally Posted by dad

You must remember that you have no idea what is actually out there. Therefore you have no idea if starlight split hydrogen atoms, or something else.

Incorrect. We can measure the wavelength of photons, thereby measuring the emission spectra of a cosmic body. Therefore, we do know that the light came from the excitation of electrons in a specific element. This is can be confirmed in laboratories.

Originally Posted by dad

All we can do is weakly try to see what is out there. Even then, that requires, usually, a lot of 'imagination' to put it politely.

Wrong, it requires an elementary comprehension basic physics and chemistry.

Originally Posted by dad

"molecular hydrogen (symbol H2) The normal form of hydrogen gas found on Earth, with two hydrogen atoms bound together by two shared electrons. Hydrogen molecules cannot survive in most regions of space, because they are easily dissociated (split) by ultraviolet light from stars, but they do occur in cold, dense molecular clouds where they are shielded by dust particles. Molecular hydrogen is the main constituent of molecular clouds, but it is difficult to observe directly as it is a symmetrical molecule with no strong radio or millimetre-wave spectral lines."

Except when the electrons are excited, obviously. Beyond that, I'm skeptical of your non-scientific source for using such vague language as "Easy" to describe the bond energy of an H-H bond, when it is perfectly quantifiable. The bond energy of H2 is 436 kJ/Mol by the way. Hardly "easily dissociated".

Originally Posted by dad

So what "split" what, when, and how do we know, is the issue. Not, what splits what on earth now.

Science certainly is full of the dark stuff.

Are you seriously referring to the breaking of a covalent bond as a "split"?

This is elementary, Dad. Physics has remained the same. The bond energy of hydrogen molecules is the same on earth as in outer space.

Originally Posted by dad

---It is not I that avoids the issues, in any way.

Then why have you been refusing to address the refutation of your original point?

Originally Posted by dad

I never denied any spectra, that is a lie.

You claim that we can't tell what is out there, denying or ignoring emission spectra.

Originally Posted by dad

The point is not that hydrogen may not be different than here, and observed, if that is what we did see. The point is that we cannot say how it got that way! We can merely see how the spectrum is. No one questions that we can see how things work in a lab?? Can you name something from a lab, that I said doesn't work??

Try to debate in good faith. It is not I that acts trollish here.

Hydrogen has a bond energy of 436 kJ/Mol and has an emission line of the wavelength it does because that is a fundamental property of hydrogen.

Why on Earth should the "How it got that way" matter at all?

dad · #27 29th October 2009, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Gracchus

When debating whether leprechauns created the universe, whether they wear green or orange is the central issue. Dealing with it is not avoiding debate, it is engaging in the very heart of the matter.

For ignorant men to debate anything about the creation of the universe when they can't get a handle on what the universe de jour was like, they might as well be talking fables. In fact that is what they are doing. In this thread, we are looking at the universe out there right now. Aside from how science is stumbling to correct fables of dark matter, and add some maybe this or maybe that, sprinkled with stardust, I do not see you or anyone dealing with the issue.

laconicstudent · #28 29th October 2009, 10:50 PM

In other news, Dad's OP was refuted.

dad · #29 29th October 2009, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by laconicstudent

Ok, just for amusement, I'll refute this, even though you never bother to try refuting my own points

Incorrect. We can measure the wavelength of photons, thereby measuring the emission spectra of a cosmic body. Therefore, we do know that the light came from the excitation of electrons in a specific element. This is can be confirmed in laboratories.

Not if the spectra represents something like another phase of hydrogen, that would take over 10 million years to flip in this state! If we see something coming in (or hear it, and interpret it, in some cases) we know only what it is. Or, in some cases, what it appears to be. Now, in the example of Hydrogen, that if I read the article right, is not seen. It is in the microwave range of the field. What we know, as far as I can read, is how it is as it comes in. NOT how it got that way. Experiments, as the articles asy are extremely difficult on earth, or near it. Too much interference.

It seems to me, that if the far universe was still in another state, or had been, either one, that a flip for quantum particles (that we now see coming in) would have nothing to do with a present universe state!

Except when the electrons are excited, obviously. Beyond that, I'm skeptical of your non-scientific source for using such vague language as "Easy" to describe the bond energy of an H-H bond, when it is perfectly quantifiable. The bond energy of H2 is 436 kJ/Mol by the way. Hardly "easily dissociated".

That depends on if it was associated to begin with, and to what!? Also, we know that the quantum level involves things far faster and different, than present light, or physics provide us with. In another thread the example of over 10,000 times the speed of light, for a quantum effect was given.

[/i]Are you seriously referring to the breaking of a covalent bond as a "split"?

This is elementary, Dad. Physics has remained the same. The bond energy of hydrogen molecules is the same on earth as in outer space.

Prove it?

Then why have you been refusing to address the refutation of your original point?

Not sure how you think it was refuted. Seems to me, you merely tossed molecular hydrogen into the mix. Clouding the issue is not the same as refuting something. What exactly do you think was refuted?

You claim that we can't tell what is out there, denying or ignoring emission spectra.

No, we can tell what we observe and see. But, if the spin flip thingie was a done deal by the time we see it, you can't ignore that! All man does, is try to figure out how a spin flip would be could be, must have been done in this state! We have zero reason to believe that, until and unless a same state universe was proven FIRST. So far all science does is project our little reality and state out to the great beyond. They do it in such an obsessive way, also, it is comical.

Hydrogen has a bond energy of 436 kJ/Mol and has an emission line of the wavelength it does because that is a fundamental property of hydrogen.

Why on Earth should the "How it got that way" matter at all?

So, that has what to do with a spin flip??

I see many folks are scrambling to distance themselves from the big bang, and dark matter. Here is an example.

"We also showed that the presence of large amounts of the hard-to-detect molecular hydrogen in interstellar space could provide an alternative explanation to the Big Bang theory, by explaining the observed redshift as a result of the delayed propagation of light through space, caused by the collision of photons with interstellar matter.

Using the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory, E. A. Valentijn and P. P. van der Werf recently detected huge amounts of molecular hydrogen (H2) in NGC 891 , an edge-on galaxy 30 million light-years away in Andromeda (Valentijn and van der Werf 1999). In their report, published in September 1999, they state that their result "matches well, the mass required to solve the problem of the missing mass of spiral galaxies." They conclude that the galaxy contains 5 to 15 times more molecular than atomic hydrogen.

Electromagnetic radiation is emitted at the wavelength of 21 cm, or an absorption line is observed (in the background radiation) at that wavelength. However, when two atoms of atomic hydrogen combine, forming molecular hydrogen (H2), their spins are coupled and completely cancel each other. The radio-frequency spectral line at 21 cm no longer exists, and the molecular hydrogen becomes totally invisible at that wavelength...." etc
Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

So..what about hydrogen in far space is it, that really matters in the creation debate?

Gracchus · #30 30th October 2009, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by dad

For ignorant men to debate anything about the creation of the universe when they can't get a handle on what the universe de jour was like, they might as well be talking fables.

But who is the ignorant man? Those who have actually studied cosmology, or someone who pulls fantasies out of his ... (In your case, it makes no difference!) ...head?

In fact that is what they are doing. In this thread, we are looking at the universe out there right now.

But what astronomers are looking at is what they see right now and what they have seen in the past. And if they are looking at something 1 light year (1013 kilometers) away they are looking a year into the past. And if they are looking at the microwave background radiation they are looking back about thirteen billion years.

Aside from how science is stumbling to correct fables of dark matter, and add some maybe this or maybe that, sprinkled with stardust, I do not see you or anyone dealing with the issue.

The image may fall upon your retinae but Your brain can't process it.

Of course you don't understand what you see, because your brain doesn't recognize what you see. How can you see what there is to see when you must screen everything through a filter of absurdities?

Rather than admit that you don't understand what you see, and I realize you can't, you say you can't see it.

And to fill the emptiness that should be filled by reality, you make stuff up.